MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400095646 · doi:10.1002/ksa.12326

Arthroscopic management of isolated partial‐thickness rotator cuff tears

2024· review· en· W4400095646 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Umile Giuseppe Longo, Martina Marino, Alberto Lalli, Benedetta Bandini, Diana Giannarelli, Miguel Ángel Ruiz Ibán

Bibliographic record

VenueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotator cuffMedicineTearsOrthopedic surgeryArthroscopyRotator cuff injurySurgeryOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study is to provide a comprehensive review on the surgical outcomes following arthroscopic treatments of partial-thickness rotator cuff tears (PT-RCTs) and to compare the postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score following in situ transtendon repair and tear completion, followed by repair. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL and CENTRAL bibliographic databases were searched. Papers including patients with PT-RCTs of any grade who underwent treatment using debridement, in situ transtendon repair, tear completion and repair or bioinductive collagen implants were reviewed. Primary PT-RCTs were the sole indication for surgery. Primary postoperative outcomes assessed included the ASES score, the Absolute Constant-Murley score, the Simple Shoulder Test, the Visual Analogue Scale, the University of California-Los Angeles Shoulder Scale, the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Score, range of motion, complications and revisions. A meta-analysis of comparative studies compared the postoperative ASES score between patients treated with in situ transtendon repair versus tear completion repair. RESULTS: = 86%), and effect sizes ranged from -0.49 in favour of the tear completion and repair technique to an effect size of +1.07 favouring in situ transtendon repair. The overall effect size of 0.02 suggests an equivalence between the two techniques in terms of the ASES score. Two studies with a total sample size of 111 patients reported on debridement, and four studies with a total sample size of 155 patients reported on bioinductive collagen implants. CONCLUSION: Debridement alone is suitable for Ellman grades I-II PT-RCTs. In situ transtendon and tear completion repair techniques yield similar postoperative outcomes. Bioinductive collagen implants hold promise but lack long-term efficacy data. High-quality comparative studies are needed to determine the best treatment for PT-RCTs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology ArthroscopySame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207